OK folks, most of you know I'm a hard core LOTR fan so naturally I find this annoying. Where in the movie is this shot:
I've NEVER seen it and yet it is shown everywhere having to do with the movies!
________________________________ "If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are rotten, either write the things worth reading or do things worth the writing." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1950 | Location: Milkyway, the earth, USA, Arizona, Chandler | Registered: June 25, 2003
The first Orc is from the prologue, I don;t know if this shot was exactly for RotK, maybe it's a bluescreen and they used the footage for the FOTR prologue and trailerfootage for Rotk or something. Keep in mind that for Rotk they shot 680 kilometres of film.
Gotan
Posts: 132 | Location: Eastern of Holland | Registered: October 16, 2004
Lord of the rings sucked. I watched the first one, it was crappy, my cousin made me watch the second....O my god 2 hours of incessant goblin fights and bs. Bad movie, very bad movie. Refuse to watch the third one.
I'm generally not a fan of fantasy (can't stand Harry Potter), but I thought the LOTR films were very well-made and were pretty engrossing. However, I definitely don't think they deserved all those Oscars.
ZombieTurnip you just don't like it because you don't like the genre. Take a look at the extra's (documentary's) I think pretty much everyone here will agree that they made pretty much the best in everything, VFX, sound, Music is extroadinairy, a lot of credit must be given for making the book into such a fine screenplay, and much more.
Everything was totally A+, and to me it's the best movie ever made. I'm just stunned at how the movie was made, so much effort was put into it. For RotK, the last shot was delivered 5 days before the actual premiere, they were doing 100 shots a week, composer was writing 6 minutes a day, sound design team didn't have any days off in 3 or 4 months. Everyone in postproduction was working for a minumum of 16 hours a day I think. And still they made a masterpiece.
No, you're definitely wrong, I have big doubts whether any director can surpass these movies. Totally stunning. They did have a big budget though, and that really helped...
Posts: 132 | Location: Eastern of Holland | Registered: October 16, 2004
quote: Lord of the rings sucked. I watched the first one, it was crappy, my cousin made me watch the second....O my god 2 hours of incessant goblin fights and bs. Bad movie, very bad movie. Refuse to watch the third one.
thats ****ing hilarious, when i read that post i could have sworn it was mine, cause its the same thing i say on this site constantly. at least im not alone.
Posts: 2173 | Location: n/a | Registered: May 06, 2003
quote: No, you're definitely wrong, I have big doubts whether any director can surpass these movies. Totally stunning. They did have a big budget though, and that really helped...
I'm sure the 300 million dollar budget didn't hurt...he couldn't have done it on a shoestring for sure
Posts: 2173 | Location: n/a | Registered: May 06, 2003
quote: Lord of the rings sucked. I watched the first one, it was crappy, my cousin made me watch the second....O my god 2 hours of incessant goblin fights and bs. Bad movie, very bad movie. Refuse to watch the third one.
thats ****ing hilarious, when i read that post i could have sworn it was mine, cause its the same thing i say on this site constantly. at least im not alone.
I agree with you guys, LOTR = crap, Willow is 10^100000 better than LOTR and in one movie too, so bonus points there.
DIRECTOR. EDITOR. WRITER. kingstonfilms
"My world succeeds this one..." - the instant the lightning strikes the tower... everything will be fine.
While I don't say LOTR is the greatest movie/s ever. It is about 100% better than the majority of the crap films coming out of Hollywood. It might not have been as good as the books (even though I find it hard to compare the two mediums), but it was still an excelent movie.
quote:I'm sure the 300 million dollar budget didn't hurt...he couldn't have done it on a shoestring for sure
No crap...anyways if anyone tried that then everyone would complain that it was good enough, and that it didn't do the books justice. Not every movie can (or should) be made on a cheap budget, this being one of them.
the film could of been so much better than what it was. The cinematography was terrible! Everytime someone said something important (which was like everyline) Peter Jackson framed a close up and then zoomed in on their face. Real original. And the battle scenes had bad camera work too!
The music was too epic sounding, Lord of the Rings is a fantasy, it should've had weird music.....and midgets. The Hobbits should've been played by midgets, that would've been so much more awesome. Cause Elijah Wood sucks.
and I can't stand Willow.
Posts: 3927 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: July 21, 2003
quote: No crap...anyways if anyone tried that then everyone would complain that it was good enough, and that it didn't do the books justice. Not every movie can (or should) be made on a cheap budget, this being one of them.
Ya, but without the 300 million budget there would be less pressure to deliver a commercially viable product, and therefore it would have been better without any dumb unecessary slapstick humour ("they come in pints? I'm getting one (note I only have the crap from the first LOTR to pick on)). I mean why did the star wars prequels suck so much? I think It's because of the high expectations and Lucas's wanting to please a certain audience, hence the insertion and disastorous Jar Jar Binks. When he made the first one he was under such pressure, but they didn't just hand him an astronomical amount of $$$, and on Empire Strikes Back he used his own money and was therefore more responsible to what was important. But after the millions he had to spend on the prequels he just too much freedom for certain things. I recently discovered this after overhearing a couple ppl discussing El Mariachi on the bus, and how one felt the first Mariachi was better because of the way Rodriguez shot it, and how he had to be creative, unlike Once Upon a Time In Mexico where he could just tell his crew to set up a greenscreen whenever he had an idea for a scene (although I'm sure he still helped set up and all). That's why so many filmmakers make their best films on lower budgets. Just somethign to consider.
Posts: 2173 | Location: n/a | Registered: May 06, 2003
quote:without any dumb unecessary slapstick humour ("they come in pints? I'm getting one
LOL - I actually thought that fit right into the characters as Tolkien wrote them. The stuff I hated was Gimli's reduction into a comic relief character. "nobody tosses a dwarf!" was mildly funny, but it should have stopped there.
| PerryKroll.com | TRC | "If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled." Wodehouse
Posts: 5197 | Location: Tisch at New York University | Registered: June 03, 2003
Gimli in the movies was quite annoying, and dissapointing for me since he was one of my favorites in the books. He just had way too many one liners in the movie, a few were funny, but most made me cringe.
Studentfilms.com Filmmaking Forums 
